http://www.theguardian.com/society/...e-waistline-increases-risk-of-prostate-cancer Being overweight and having a large waistline increases risk of prostate cancer
Denny, I do know how I feel better than you do. I'm not talking 30 minutes, I'm talking some emergency that makes a meal a few hours late. I am not simply hungry, I feel woozy. And no, I am not diabetic or prediabetic or pre pre anything. Maybe just because I am normally so scheduled that a big variation throws metabolism off. But again, I know how I feel, you don't. And I sure don't have to worry about prostrate cancer since I'm not overweight ... oh wait ... I wouldn't anyway.
When you sleep, you don't eat for quite a few hours. Tack on the time between dinner/last snack and bed time. 10+ hours? During that time, your body creates glucose from body fat via gluconeogenesis. Diabetic has nothing to do with it
Denny, I know you really want to mansplain to me how I feel, because you know better than I do. You're wrong about that and wrong on facts. Ever hear of morning depression? It's quite common. People feel mentally low, even if they are otherwise OK (and depressed people feel REALLY low) first thing in the morning. And feel better after eating. Ever had a fasting blood test? It's needed for baseline blood sugar and other labs. If you ever did, I'll bet you felt crummy. People who don't eat in the morning often feel woozy. I had that problem in college when I had an early (6-8) AM job, walked there (1 1/2 miles), worked on my feet 2 hours, then ate before class. I was advised to eat a small snack in the morning. When Jews fast on Yom Kippur, the idea is that it is supposed to be uncomfortable. People are supposed to feel rotten. (But not life threatening, which is why young children, pregnant women, and sick people are exempt.) I mean, if you are determined to mansplain how I feel, I can't stop you. But I find it pretty funny.
When you stuff your face with carb loaded foods and lots of added sugar, you absolutely crave more sugar. I don't dispute that. That the body needs carbs to create glucose to feed cells and the brain is what I am disputing. If you didn't stuff your face with carbs and added sugar, you wouldn't crash from lack of food when you're hungry. That's all there is to it.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...eatment-weight-loss-fitness-cancer-recurrence Trial to investigate link between weight, fitness and cancer recurrence Scientists to test hypothesis that a weight loss programme for breast cancer patients after medical treatment lowers risk of disease returning A large trial is being launched this summer to establish whether diet and exercise regimes should be prescribed by doctors for women who have had breast cancer in the same way that they prescribe drugs, to prevent the disease returning and potentially save lives. Women who are overweight or obese have a higher risk of breast cancer. But accumulating evidence suggests that becoming fitter and losing some pounds after a diagnosis could cut the chances of a recurrence and even lower the risk of death.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ercise-are-pointless-for-losing-weight-warns/ Low-fat diets and exercise are pointless for losing weight, warns surgical expert Low fat diets and exercise are pointless for those wanting to lose weight and obese people should simply eat less, a former shadow health minister told the House of Lords yesterday. Lord McColl, emeritus professor of surgery at Guys Hospital in London, warned that current health advice to avoid fat was ‘false and misleading’ and was fuelling the obesity epidemic. Speaking at a House of Lords debate, the former surgeon warned that exercising was useless against the huge levels of calories from carbohydrates and sugars that people are now consuming. He warned that the obesity epidemic was as bad for public health as the 1919 flu epidemic. (Sugar is the enemy.)
Update: hit 40lbs lost this morning. I thought maybe my trip to New Zealand would ruin me, but it really hasn't. I've lost a steady 10lbs a month for the last four months.
Damn BC, you are killing it! 40 is a good amount, I'm sure you are feeling the benefit by now, walking easier, stairs, sweating less, all those things that keep adding up. Awesome. My update, not much more than holding steady. I've been drinking a lot more wine lately which makes it difficult, but it's also why I am back in school, in a new industry and all that stuff. Balance is difficult. I'm not looking to lose a bunch more at this point, so holding steady ain't bad. But eventually, I'd love to drop another 15lbs or so.
Been a while since I posted an update: I'm down more than 63 pounds and have finally broken the 300lbs barrier; weighed in at 299.4 this morning. This is the first time I've been under 300 since this time around 2003.
When you break 200, you're in onederland. Whatever you're doing is working, so keep it up. And stick with it after you're done losing weight.
My current setup: Each morning, I set my base max calories to 1800. But, as I track my activity during the day, I grant myself calories in addition to the 1800. My goal is to end up with 2000 calories allowed during the day. It's very gentle, but the start of a process that will ramp up over time. As I do this more, I'll lower the base calories (say, to 1700 or 1600), and expect more exercise out of myself. It forces both better eating habits and more light exercise. Holding to a 2000 diet is something I plan on keeping up forever.
I don't mean to discourage anyone, but 90% of people who lose weight on diets end up gaining it all back, and then some. The problem is twofold. 1) Whatever you did to lose weight is something you need to do for life. It's not a "diet" that you go on to lose weight, then go back to eating "normal." Whatever you did before the diet is what got you overweight in the first place. Stick with what lost the weight, just add enough more food/calories to maintain your weight. 2) If you lose weight too fast, you kill your metabolism. The biggest losers lost hundred+ pounds during the season and they're all back to their previous weight. When the researchers looked at their metabolisms, they were significantly lower than they would be for a person of their height, age, and weight. By a lot. This is a giant hole you're already in. It doesn't take _that_ much extra food to really put on the pounds after losing weight. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html?_r=0 After ‘The Biggest Loser,’ Their Bodies Fought to Regain Weight Contestants lost hundreds of pounds during Season 8, but gained them back. A study of their struggles helps explain why so many people fail to keep off the weight they lose. (the relevant bits follow) “It is frightening and amazing,” said Dr. Hall, an expert on metabolism at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. “I am just blown away.” It has to do with resting metabolism, which determines how many calories a person burns when at rest. When the show began, the contestants, though hugely overweight, had normal metabolisms for their size, meaning they were burning a normal number of calories for people of their weight. When it ended, their metabolisms had slowed radically and their bodies were not burning enough calories to maintain their thinner sizes. Researchers knew that just about anyone who deliberately loses weight — even if they start at a normal weight or even underweight — will have a slower metabolism when the diet ends. So they were not surprised to see that “The Biggest Loser” contestants had slow metabolisms when the show ended. What shocked the researchers was what happened next: As the years went by and the numbers on the scale climbed, the contestants’ metabolisms did not recover. They became even slower, and the pounds kept piling on. It was as if their bodies were intensifying their effort to pull the contestants back to their original weight. Mr. Cahill was one of the worst off. As he regained more than 100 pounds, his metabolism slowed so much that, just to maintain his current weight of 295 pounds, he now has to eat 800 calories a day less than a typical man his size. Anything more turns to fat.
This sounds like a solid approach. The biggest losers, that I mentioned just now, ate at much more massive calorie deficits and that did the real damage. At 300 lbs, your TDEE (total daily energy expenditure) is probably over 4000 calories. You might lose 2lbs/week at 3000. FWIW. But at 1800, you're still fine. When you end up eating 2000+ calories a day to maintain, you aren't likely to regain the weight.
I don't feel like I'm withholding from myself until I get to 1600 calories a day. I experimented with a bunch of different calorie intakes, and 1800 is strict but not leaving me hungry at any time. I just don't get any candy. My metabolism is super-low; at 2000 calories, I'm losing 2lbs a week. Thus the stricter base with an exercise reward system. Gotta bump that metabolism up!
